If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

Itchy, FYI, it takes a while to identify who the semi-trolls on the board are. They pretend to be primal but will post some stealthy anti-primal study, hoping to convince some primals to revert to semi-CW. The original poster is one of these.

IMO legumes should be in the 20%. I am so accustomed to red kidney beans in chili that it feels weird to leave them out. And I like occasional hummus. I don't feel the need for any other legumes.

5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

Comment

I agree that nut and legumes are the same thing and it is odd to call one evil while the other - good. I think it depends on how you structure your diet, around fats or carbohydrates, your need for fibre, your satiation mechanism, digestion specifics and the tendency to overeat one or another if you should include or exclude either and how often.

Comment

I am leaning the other way - too many eliminations with no reason can be harmful, as we simply cannot know what our body manages to take out of each food. Eliminating without cause a staple food could lead to accumulation of a deficiency... In other words, if it ain't harmful, don't drop it. But that's just me.

Comment

I am leaning the other way - too many eliminations with no reason can be harmful, as we simply cannot know what our body manages to take out of each food. Eliminating without cause a staple food could lead to accumulation of a deficiency... In other words, if it ain't harmful, don't drop it. But that's just me.

But it is harmful. The argument is that nuts are as harmful as legumes. That's not an argument to include legumes, it's an argument to limit nuts.

The Champagne of Beards

Comment

Mayber. Maybe not. Legumes and nuts are all very different in their macro-comp. Nuts have one thing going against them that legumes do not - nuts are very easy to overeat as they are not satiating at all, and most of them are high in PUFA. Legumes are not easy to overeat and they do wonders for satiation in a number of people. Legimes are food, nuts are a treat.

Comment

Mayber. Maybe not. Legumes and nuts are all very different in their macro-comp. Nuts have one thing going against them that legumes do not - nuts are very easy to overeat as they are not satiating at all, and most of them are high in PUFA. Legumes are not easy to overeat and they do wonders for satiation in a number of people. Legimes are food, nuts are a treat.

Peanuts and beans can be pretty easy to overeat, but I get what you're saying. I think it's a minor point honestly. There are certainly valid points to both sides of the argument, and there are certainly worse things you could be eating.

I hope you're as happy with your decision to eat legumes as I am with my decision (mostly) not to.

Comment

Elizabeth, Texan version of chili does not include legumes, however, there is a wide variety of stews spiced with chili that include legumes, including peanuts. Extending a stew with beans or lentils makes it more economical and more satiating for a lot of peoples. As well, it is tastier for some - personal preference, of course.

This argument is rather ike the argument of 'you can't have a potato in your stew, put a turnip instead.'

I think initial inclusion of nuts was due to very severe limitations of the inital Paleo diet. Basically back at the inception, it had no satiating substances at all for those who need starch to satiate. There was prohibition on tubers, to the extant of exclusion of carrots and radishes; there was no 'safe starches' at all, there was no sugar in any form, basically it was really about what grows above ground. In addition, initial Paleo also cut fats as well. Because of the chemicals, dry fruit was also out of limits. It was a very hungry diet. So, they had to add something, so they added nuts.

Well, that's what I think.

Since Corbain, Paleo developped into inclusion territory far more than into exclusion territory. The only notable recent exclusion that I can think of are canola and flax, though DeVinci advocated no seeds at all (somehow they were toxic while nuts weren't).

EDIT: What i am trying to say is that personal experience is the key for me.
Richard, I remember how I first ate beans after reading 4-Hour body, with shaking hands, thinking I have committed a Primal Sin. The universe did not implode. I eat beans once in a while since then and not as a main dish... I do like pea soup once in a winter, and stews with lentils and kale. I like eggplant caviar better than hummus, but whatever.